Posts

“Help to Buy” is Actually “Help the Banks”

,

The government is promoting their Help to Buy scheme where they will own 30-40% of your home (instead of you). While it might sound good to Australians desperate to get into a house, the details are terrifying. One of those details that didn’t get much media attention was the structure of the mortgage. Government won’t be a co-owner of the house, they’ll be a second mortgagor. That means they are behind whichever Big Bank gives you the main mortgage.

This is bad news because if house prices go down at all (they are currently at record highs) the Big Bank gets first priority to recover all of their losses, leaving the homeowner and the government (aka taxpayers) out of pocket. That means the banks will probably be getting risk free profits at our expense. This is just one of the many problems with “Help to Buy” which means it won’t help at all.

One Nation has the real solutions to the housing crisis. Start with cutting record immigration, banning foreign ownership and letting tradies do their job, not pumping up Big Bank profits.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. Just to confirm, the bank or the lender would be the first mortgagor and the government would be the second?

Senator AYRES: Yes, that’s exactly right, and there are, of course, other arrangements that people have in the private sector that that will look very similar—that is, for the participant, the relationship with the approved lender and the second mortgage will be exactly the same as other Australians have, but there will be a lower mortgage threshold and lower repayments for that group of Australians who satisfy the criteria.

Senator ROBERTS: In the event of a default or price fall, is the bank entitled to recover its losses before the government does? That would seem to be the case.

Senator AYRES: Yes. Just like in an arrangement that you might have or any other Queenslander might have with their lender, there are shared risks and shared benefits.

/4 Comments/by

Labor’s ‘Rent to Buy’ Plan Will Increase Housing Prices

,

The Help to Buy Bill 2023, introduced by the Albanese Labor government, will make Australia’s housing crisis worse. The bill proposes to allow the government to own a significant portion of the house – 30% for existing homes and 40% for new ones. Providing buyers with an additional 40% purchasing power will only drive up house prices further, as highlighted by the Productivity Commission’s warnings about increasing demand leading to higher prices.

The bill is also criticised for being poorly targeted and not addressing the fundamental issue of housing supply and demand. The limited number of spots available under this scheme suggests the government know it will introduce inflation. Key questions about how profits, losses, and renovations will be treated are unclear. Participants in this scheme could be far worse off.

One Nation proposes a way for all Australians to be able to afford a house. We focus on addressing both supply and demand issues. These include throttling the amount of immigrants in the country from their record highs to pre-COVID numbers (for a start), banning foreign ownership of Australian residential properties, allowing Australians to leverage their superannuation funds towards owning homes, establishing fixed 5% mortgages, cutting GST on building materials and gutting the bloated building codes.

Under the government’s “Help to Buy” bill, you’ll become a slave in your own home. Under One Nation’s plan, the Australian dream of owning your own home will become a reality.

Transcript

The Help to Buy Bill 2023 is a bill that won’t help anyone. Right now, Queenslanders are sleeping under bridges and on riverbanks. In one of the world’s richest states, working families with children are living in cars. Where do they toilet or shower? It’s inhuman. Rents are skyrocketing—if a rental can be found. House prices are reaching record highs. This is a housing crisis, one of the worst we’ve faced. It’s an inhuman catastrophe.  

The Albanese Labor government wants to look like it’s doing something. Enter the Help to Buy Bill. Under this plan the government wants to own a significant part of your house. If it’s an existing place, the government wants to own 30 per cent; if it’s a new place, 40 per cent—with the government paying for part of it with low-income earners. While a 40 per cent subsidy might sound attractive, it’s fatally flawed. If the government just borrows more money for this plan then one thing is going to happen. When you give people 40 per cent more money to buy a house, house prices are going to go up. The Bills Digest notes: 

In 2022, the Productivity Commission concluded that—unless it is well-targeted … assistance to prospective home buyers presents too great a risk of increasing housing demand and, consequently, house prices. 

The government’s own Productivity Commission warned them this plan would increase house prices. Even the Labor government recognises this. That’s why they’ve severely limited the amount of places available under the scheme—so that house prices aren’t drastically increased. There’s a contradiction right there. If the government is only opening limited spaces so there’s no impact on house prices, then it’s an admission the scheme will not help many people. 

The problem of increasing house prices is one of too much demand for the amount of supply. This bill will only increase the amount of demand and increase house prices. In the absence of more supply, we need to decrease demand, not increase it. As Dr Cameron Murray from Fresh Economic Thinking accurately said: 

If you want people to have cheap housing, give them cheap housing. You can go and do all the financial tricks in the world but at the end of the day if they’ve paid that price, someone’s paying the price. 

This bill’s core concept and premise is flawed and possibly a lie. We can’t subsidise our way out of a house price problem. 

Looking at the bill’s details or lack of details, the problem is worse. Firstly, let’s look at profit and loss and renovations. One of the most concerning questions is how the government will treat profits and losses and renovations. To these questions, this bill has no answers. How much of the profits will the government take if you sell your house? We don’t know. How much of the loss will taxpayers pay if house prices go down or the homebuyer defaults on their mortgage? Australian house prices have aggressively and consistently risen for 30 years. What if they fall? The bill is silent on how this would be handled. Would taxpayers be forced to pay for the entire loss on someone’s mortgage? The government basically acts as a mortgagor second to the bank. Does this mean the bank gets first call to recoup all their losses and the taxpayer simply has to cop the loss on whatever is left over? We don’t know. 

If someone improves the value of the house with renovations, does the government take 40 per cent of the improved value while doing nothing? We don’t know. Imagine tearing up carpets, swinging hammers and sanding with bare hands for six months or a year, and the government takes 40 per cent of the profits from that hard work of yours. That’s entirely possible under the bill as currently drafted. Under the government’s Help to Buy Bill, Australians could become slaves in their own homes. We cannot wait for this bill to be passed and a minister to make a decision later down the track. These matters must be clarified and explained in the bill. Homebuyers and taxpayers deserve to know what the risk is here. 

Secondly, let’s look at some criteria. The eligibility criteria are clunky and don’t cater for differences between states. The maximum income is set at $90,000 for singles and $120,000 for couples. This is despite the average house price and the required mortgage varying hugely between states and between towns. In Darwin, the average house price is $504,000. In Sydney, it’s $1.2 million, more than double, yet the same income thresholds apply. The price thresholds are not available in the bill, and it appears the government has not yet published thresholds. When it comes to the housing crisis, one size doesn’t fit all, yet that’s exactly what this bill tries to do. We’re just meant to pass the bill as a blank cheque and trust that the bureaucrats and the minister will get it right down the road—maybe. 

Thirdly, let’s look at the constitutional basis. This bill is completely outside the federal government’s power. Some reviewers have said that Help to Buy is built on a ‘complex constitutional foundation’. That may be the understatement of the year. Put very simply, under the Constitution, this is not the federal government’s job. To make this bill legal, there are a huge number of constitutional headaches, state government agreements and transfers of powers. Federal parliament simply shouldn’t be dealing with this. It’s outside of the powers granted to us under the Constitution. 

/9 Comments/by

One Nation Calls for Inquiry into Unsustainable Immigration

,

Australia is in a housing crisis. Tent cities are appearing across the country, from parks and bridges to family cars, as rents soar and home ownership becomes unattainable. I’ve seen these conditions firsthand, and it’s heartbreaking. Since 2020, rents have increased by 40%, and the average house price has jumped to nearly 10 times the average income.

A major driver of this crisis is our turbocharged immigration program. While I value the contributions of migrants—being one myself—the current intake is unsustainable. In 2023 alone, over half a million net migrants arrived in Australia. This relentless surge is straining our housing market, health services, infrastructure, and economy.

The math is simple. With 2.45 million temporary visa holders in the country, about one million homes are occupied by these individuals. Yet, we’re building far fewer homes than we need, leaving more Australians homeless and without hope. This unprecedented immigration inflates demand, driving up costs in housing, infrastructure, and everyday essentials. High inflation, soaring interest rates, and gridlocked roads are the direct results of this unsustainable growth. Meanwhile, our health system is overwhelmed, and working families are left to fend for themselves.

The government’s solution? More immigration. It’s time to prioritise Australians—our families, our communities, and our future. Let’s address the housing crisis with meaningful reforms, not empty promises.

Transcript

Australia is in a housing crisis—a housing catastrophe. Tent cities are appearing across the country in the way many people have never seen before. I have been to them. It’s disgraceful. In almost every major city in Queensland I’ve been to, the tents are there. People are sleeping under bridges, in caravans, in parks or in their family car. In August 2020, the national average rent was $437 a week. It’s now $627 a week. That’s an increase of 40 per cent over just a few years. In 1987, the average house price was 2.8 times the average income. Today the house price is 9.7 times the income. That’s nearly 10 times. What hope have our children got? 

A major driver of the housing crisis is Australia’s turbocharged immigration program. Listen to the facts that I’ll come up with soon, and remember that I’m not against migration. I was born in India; I’m half migrant. Australia has a very proud history of migrants building this country, but at the moment we have too many. Let me give you those figures. Australia’s net overseas migration used to average a bit over 80,000 a year. For the 2023 year, our net intake was an astonishing 547,000 new people. That’s more than half a million new people net. In the nine months to September 2024, 394,000 immigrants were added to the population. That puts us well on track for yet another year of more than half a million arrivals into the country. That’s net. That’s after the people who’ve left have been removed from the count. 

Soon after setting Australia’s immigration record last year, Prime Minister Albanese promised he would cut immigration rates. Instead he increased immigration rates and is on track for a second new record in a row. Before 2020 and excluding tourists and short-stay crew, there were around 1.8 million temporary visa holders in the country. Today that number is 2.45 million temporary visa holders in the country, an increase of a third. Using Australia’s average household size of about 2½ people per dwelling, that means temporary visa holders are taking up one million homes. One million homes are unavailable because of this immigration program. 

The Master Builders Association’s October housing review shows that, in the 12 months to 30 June this year, only 158,000 homes were completed. So much for your housing policy. That’s less than we needed to cover new arrivals let alone the homeless and those sharing who want their own place. Every year that this Labor government is in power is yet another year Australia’s housing crisis becomes worse. That is why it’s beyond a crisis; it’s a catastrophe. The ALP and the Greens can promise more houses all they like. Houses aren’t built out of rhetoric. When Australians are sleeping on the street we have to stop the flow of more people into the country. 

Some of these temporary visa holders have to leave. Let’s start with the 400,000 overseas students who have completed or discontinued their study and have failed the 100-point test necessary for permanent residency. These students are in a limbo which is best solved by returning home and developing their own countries with the skills learnt here. Then there are hundreds of thousands of long-stay visa holders who have failed to learn English and failed to get a job but who nonetheless avail themselves of social security. I’ll say that again: they failed to learn English, failed to get a job and are on social security that the Australian taxpayers are paying for. If someone has been in this country for five years and has failed to earn their own way then their visa must be critically reviewed to determine if Australia is the right place for them. It’s time to put the temporary back into temporary visa holder. Our country is bleeding; stop twisting the knife. 

The unprecedented level of immigration isn’t just leading to the housing crisis; 2.45 million extra people add to inflation. Inflation is caused when too much demand is chasing too few goods. It’s really simple, and 2.45 million new arrivals is a lot of new demand. It’s a hell of a lot. The government’s net zero energy policy has driven up power prices—we can all see that— and reduced the capacity of agriculture and manufacturing to meet this demand, leading to demand inflation. It’s a double whammy on inflation. The Reserve Bank has refused to lower interest rates because, as they have publicly stated, this unprecedented rate of immigration is creating so much excess demand, and they have said that reducing interest rates now would cause inflation to worsen. House prices are at highs. Now we’ve got interest rates high. This is a huge catastrophe. 

Why is the government doing this? As Senator Hanson said, we’ve been in a per capita recession now for six quarters. We should be in a recession, according to the performance of our economy. The only reason we’re not in a recession is that they’re flooding the joint with migrants to bump up the gross domestic product. You see, a recession is defined as two quarters of negative gross domestic product. So the only thing saving the recession tag from being hung around Prime Minister Albanese’s neck and Treasurer Jim Chalmers’s neck is the record immigration coming in to take us over zero so we’re just barely hanging in there. They don’t want to be tagged, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, who are in office, when the recession hits. Instead they will let hundreds of thousands of people go without what they need, facing inflation and tens of thousands of people without a home. 

Immigration is also affecting our health response. Ambulance ramping is at an all-time high in most states, including in my state of Queensland. It takes time to train paramedics, expand emergency departments and buy new ambulances. The pace of the government’s increase in new arrivals has placed demand on our health system and it simply can’t keep up. Lives are at stake, people are dying, and Labor does not care. It doesn’t care about working families. It doesn’t care about mums and dads working then coming home at night to their family car in a park to see if their kids are still there. That is what this government is doing. 

One of the largest budget costs is more infrastructure, especially on roads and transport. These projects are collectively costing hundreds of billions of dollars. The huge demand for infrastructure materials and qualified people is driving up the cost of infrastructure, adding to inflation. Many of these projects wouldn’t be necessary if we didn’t have an extra 2.45 million people in the country. The people coming to work from the Gold Coast to Brisbane, coming to work from the Sunshine Coast, even Caboolture, Burpengary, Morayfield, every day to work in the city of Brisbane are tied up in a car park or are in stationary traffic for hours—their lives just slipping away. 

We have people sleeping under bridges. As I said a minute ago, we have a mother and father returning after work to see if the children are still in the car in the park in which they live, or a showground or maybe a tent under a bridge. Australia has the world’s richest reserves of minerals, bar none, and we have people sleeping in tents because the Labor government does not care. 

It’s a vicious cycle where the government claims that we can fix the immigration problem with more immigration and that we can fix the housing catastrophe by adding bureaucrats and more immigration—fix housing, the catastrophe, with more immigration.  

/3 Comments/by

Defence Claims No Housing Issues for Troops in Townsville

,

Defence generals tell me that, despite a large number of troops being relocated to Townsville during a housing crisis, there’s no problem with finding accommodation for our diggers. This claim comes despite Townsville having a “dangerously low” rental vacancy rate of just 1%.

If you or your family are experiencing difficulties in finding accommodation after being directed to move to Townsville, please email my office as I’d like to hear from you.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: How many extra people have been moved to Townsville? What numbers will Townsville increase by and are there adequate homes in Townsville?  

Senator McAllister: I think, as part of your answer, Lieutenant General Stuart, you might respond to the first part of the senator’s question, which was about making diggers homeless. You may wish to include a response to that in your answer.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: That’s just not a factually correct statement. We’re not making soldiers homeless. We have a plan that’s been worked through with our team mates in the Security and Estate Group, who are our liaison with Defence Housing, and manage the on-base accommodation. And, of course, we have a very strong relationship with local government in Townsville. It’s a staged plan, over the next three career management cycles, the first of which is—  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s a management cycle—how long?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: It’s a posting cycle—every 12 months. The moves occur roughly between December, January and February. This coming posting cycle will see the first of those soldiers that have volunteered, or have been asked to, go to Townsville to have those skills that we are building in the brigade there. To go to your point about shortages in some of our numbers, we are well under our authorised strength in Townsville. So the additional numbers don’t actually fall above the authorised strength in the next two years. That is notwithstanding the fact that the rental market in Townsville is quite tight.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s tight all over Australia—almost at record levels because of massive immigration. Immigration has doubled the previous records, so I understand the dilemma. So what you’re saying is that you understand the housing pressures, but you’re managing that?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: Yes. 

/by

Record Immigration is Making Australians Homeless

,

Australians are sleeping on the street because they can’t afford rent or their mortgage. Meanwhile, a record 2.4 million “temporary” visa holders are in the country, competing with Australians for housing.

Transcript

Chris Smith: I think it’s fair to say to Malcolm that Australia’s immigration program is now officially out of control, and the worst it has ever been. 

Senator ROBERTS: Without a doubt. Completely agree with you. We have more than 2.4 million residents, excluding tourist, residents who are not citizens. Excluding tourists. Rent is up 52% in five years. Now, just remember that the Albanese promised, after the last financial year where we got 518,000 net immigrants, by far the largest ever, almost double the previous record, Albanese commented – yeah, yeah, yeah, we’ll cut it. Well the rate Immigration is coming in this year is higher than the record from last year. Higher. These people are just telling lies after lies. Lies. And the thing is they’re hiding over a per person per capita recession. They don’t want to be the government that was in place when the recession occurred. They would rather see people sleeping under bridges, in tents, in cars. I mean, working families Chris are going home at night to their kids and sleeping in cars. Where do they shower? Where do they toilet? I mean, we got the richest state in the world, potentially in Queensland, and we got people living under bridges, families, working families. Because the government just wants to look good by lifting up GDP to make sure we don’t have a recession. We would be in a recession now without large scale immigration fudging the numbers. 

Chris Smith: Fudging the numbers, that’s exactly what large scale immigration does. It’s terrific to have you on the program. Senator Malcolm Roberts, thank you for your time. 

/2 Comments/by

Government Needs to Focus on Australians

,

I informed the Senate that it had lost its way by focussing way too much on international conflicts and spending over a billion dollars on Ukraine while neglecting to fund essential healthcare and hospitals in Queensland and other parts of Australia.

This obsession in providing international aid is misplaced when our own homeless and vulnerable citizens are struggling to access the basic necessities needed for survival.

Australian families are living in tents, children are going hungry and those in power are failing to protect them. Charity should always begin at home.  Politicians must prioritise the needs of Australians before considering assistance to anyone else. We have a national housing crisis and are already in a per capita recession.

It’s time to put Australians first.

Transcript

It’s time for politicians to focus on fixing the problems here in Australia before getting involved in foreign conflict. Last night, yet another motion appeared in the nightly Senate notices from some senators calling for stronger measures to support Ukraine. This Senate only just dealt with a matter relating to Taiwan. The Israel-Palestine war continues to feature in our Senate processes, along with the Uighurs in China and the Rohingya in Bangladesh. Among Greens senators, there seem to be more supporters for terrorist Hamas than for Australia—and that’s my point.

We live in a time when small businesses are closing at record rates—the hopes and dreams of those hard-working Australians broken in a vice of rising costs and falling sales. It’s a disaster arising from deliberate government policy. Supermarkets, traditionally the least profitable of businesses because of the social contract to not rip people off on the necessities of life, no longer honour their social contract.

Parents in Queensland are travelling up to 800 kilometres to access specialist maternity care because parliament has found a billion dollars for Ukraine yet cannot find a cent for Yeppoon, Bowen and the 33 other Queensland towns that have lost their maternity wards. Hospitals in many Queensland rural centres are still called hospitals, yet only offer the services of a GP clinic.

Australian families are living in the tent cities appearing right across our beautiful country. I’ve visited many of these in Queensland, and the sense of betrayal is palpable—and people should feel betrayed. The Senate, as the house of review, has betrayed the very people who trusted us with their vote and who trusted us to have their best interests at heart. Although our Senate does have foreign affairs powers, convention dictates the Senate stays out of foreign affairs and concentrates on domestic matters. It’s time to make that convention great again. Let’s spend our time driving the government to do better to look after Australians. Let’s look after all Australians— all who are here—first.

/by

Net Zero Policies Plays a Part in High Inflation

,

The Greens’ and Labor’s net zero policies are a large part of why we have high inflation. By replacing low cost coal with expensive industrial wind and solar, power prices rise, which then drives up prices across the board.

The Motion from Greens’ Senator McKim to introduce price controls to combat inflation is an example of “feel good” politics. Price controls often lead to companies withdrawing from the supply chain, leading to inevitable shortages and black markets.

In what was once the “lucky country,” this would be a tragedy!

Transcript

Inflation is out of control across the Australian economy. It’s disgraceful though for the Greens to leverage this human disaster to advance their green communist ideology. Advocating price controls is the economics of wishful thinking—a victory of feelings over facts, common sense, historical experience and basic economics. Price controls don’t work. They have never worked and will never work, and they make things worse. 

The price of an item is not some magical creature with a life of its own that government can control. Price is an outcome of other factors—material costs, input costs and retailer margins, to name a few. In recent times, the Greens have talked about the lack of competition in retailing, especially in food retailing, but they have missed the point. The answer to poor competition is not price controls; it’s more competition. It is Harris Farm Markets opening new concept stores that rival Coles and Woolworths. It’s the Reject Shop, which increasingly undercuts Coles and Woolies by significant amounts. It’s your local butcher or produce store, which now sell products cheaper than Coles and Woolies. 

To a degree, the Greens are using misdirection. They’re asking Australians to look over here at profiteering instead of looking at the root cause of inflation, which is the increasing cost of business inputs, starting with the Greens’ own net zero energy policies. Net zero fairytale power is pushing up power prices, and, if power goes up, everything goes up. Farmers need power to run their coolrooms, they need diesel to run their farm equipment and they need fertiliser, which is made from natural gas. Manufacturers and wholesalers need electricity, gas and diesel for every aspect of their operations, yet the Greens are over there on my left—on everyone’s left, really—advocating for no new oil or gas projects. Scarcity causes the price to rise. Their own net zero policies are a major cause of inflation. Now the Greens want to fix that with price controls. Controlling the price causes producers, wholesalers and retailers to go broke as their input costs exceed their selling price. To stay in business, these companies will most likely stop selling anything they sell at a loss. 

This is exactly what happened in Venezuela and Sri Lanka, where price controls led to food shortages and black markets appearing for food staples. Criminal gangs moved into those black markets. I know Coles and Woolies are bad, but I would take them over criminal gangs. Sri Lanka is especially relevant here. Their food crisis was caused by forcing farmers to abandon the use of hydrocarbon fertilisers and pesticides in the name of net zero—inhuman. Farm productivity fell and prices rose, as farmers tried to make enough money to feed their families. The government intervened with price controls. The result was food shortages, starvation and then rioting that forced the government to back down and, once again, allow modern production techniques to feed the people. Another problem with price controls is that investment moves away from industries that are rendered unprofitable with price controls. Investment in buildings, equipment, software and staff training will fall in price-controlled industries. That is fact that has been proven repeatedly throughout history. This leaves long-term supply deficits that will keep prices higher for longer and hurt everyday citizens. 

Unlike the Greens’ policies, One Nation’s policies will solve the cost-of-living and housing crisis without making either problem worse. We will do the opposite of the Greens, which is always a good policy. We will reduce red, green and blue tape. We will reduce new arrivals until the market can fairly provide for those who are already here. In housing, we will prevent homes being owned by those outside of Australia and allow councils to impose penalty rates on vacant homes or on those being used for casual letting which conflicts with the zoning. We will review the federal government housing code, which imposes unnecessary requirements, including making every house wheelchair friendly despite there being no wheelchair users in the house. I understand that that adds about $40,000 to the price of every new house. We will allow Australians to use their super to invest in their own home. We will create a people’s bank to provide mortgages at five per cent interest over 30 years on a five per cent deposit and allow a HECS debt to be rolled into the mortgage so that people can get a home loan. This policy means that an Australian with a good job, even if they have a HECS debt, will be able to afford their own home now and start paying it off. 

There are many, many ways to solve the humanitarian disaster that the policies of successive Liberal and Labor governments have created. Price controls and green policies on housing, immigration, the environment, mining and farming are the exact opposite. One Nation wants to free up the people and free up our markets. 

/by

Australian Houses for Australians – Ban Foreign Ownership!

,

The government says less than 1% of houses are bought by foreigners. I don’t believe them. State governments say it’s at least double that, real estate agents say it’s 10%!

I have been asking for detailed data on how they get to that number for 9 months now without answers. 

The government is hiding the true extent of foreign ownership from Australians while we’re in the middle of a housing crisis.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Overwhelmingly, Australians don’t believe foreigners should be allowed to own residential property in our country. I first asked at Senate estimates in November last year how many potential foreign buyers the ATO is detecting through its data-matching program? The government failed to answer. In February, Senator Bragg asked and was given no answer. In June estimates, I asked again and did not get an answer. Answers to my questions on notice for how many potential foreign buyers are detected are now overdue, again. Minister, why is your government hiding from the Australian people the data on potential foreign buyers of residential property? And when will you actually answer the question I’ve been asking for nine months?

Senator GALLAGHER: I recall you asking these questions, Senator Roberts, and I understood they were answered at the time by officials when I was sitting at the desk. If there have been follow-up questions you have asked notice that have not been answered, I can certainly follow that up. I think the evidence we gave during Senate estimates was that foreign investment plays an important role in bolstering Australia’s housing stock and creating additional jobs in the construction industry. But it is monitored very closely for good reason. It is tightly regulated, with foreign persons generally requiring foreign investment approval before acquiring an interest in residential land, regardless of its value, with a few exceptions. Foreign investors make up a very small proportion of the total Australian residential property market, accounting for approximately 0.93 per cent of new and established dwelling purchase transactions in 2022-23. Out of 479,257 transactions, based on ATO data from 2022-23 only 4,463 transactions were by foreign investors. It is a very small component—less than one per cent—of new and established dwelling purchase transactions in the 2022-23 financial year. I think senators have raised this through estimates as something they are interested in—raising concerns about foreign investors squeezing out local residents from being able to purchase housing. But the evidence would show that it’s a very small component of the residential property market in the transactions that are being monitored, as was explained in estimates by the ATO. (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: The New South Wales state government reported more than twice the number of overseas purchases of property that the Foreign Investment Review Board recorded in 2021. The board claims foreigners buy less than one per cent of residential property—and you just confirmed that. Yet in the first quarter NAB property survey, real estate agents say they’re selling 10 per cent of Australian housing to foreigners. Minister, if you have confidence in the Foreign Investment Review Board, why won’t you hand over the data?

Senator GALLAGHER: Again, I’m not sure which part of the data hasn’t been answered. I was sitting at estimates when you were given figures, Senator Roberts, so I’m not sure which data is the data you’re seeking. The ATO data I just read out—and I can provide this in writing to you—shows that it is 0.93 per cent for the 2022-23 financial year, and that it has come down, as I understand it, from a peak in 2015-16. The ATO do residential real estate compliance investigations—so they follow this up and check that people are compliant with the requirements of foreign ownership of residential property. They identified 428 properties for compliance, they did 410 investigations and found 145 properties in breach, and 55 of those resulted in— (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, you want foreign investment, yet foreign ownership is against Australians’ interests. Minister, this country is in a housing crisis. When will you ban foreign ownership of residential real estate and put Australians in Australian houses first?

Senator GALLAGHER: We’re not going to do that, Senator Roberts. The numbers show we need good strong rules around it, and there are strong rules around it. We need compliance with those rules, and there are good compliance processes. It’s less than one per cent, and this country has benefited from foreign investment. We benefit in terms of our economy and in terms of jobs—

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Whish-Wilson, order! Please continue, Minister.

Senator GALLAGHER: So it isn’t something we are seeking to ban. It would help if some of our housing programs, which are currently stalled in the Senate, were given approval by the Senate because then we could build more supply, which is the actual issue. I know there wants to be a lot of distractions about who’s to blame, and it’s easy to blame foreign ownership. The statistics don’t support that. I say to the Senate that there are a couple of bills that are stuck in this chamber that would help people into home-ownership and help increase the supply of housing in this country, and I say: let’s get on with that job

Questions on notice from 17 June 2024. Still unanswered and overdue as of 21 August 2024

Q0214_Economics_2024-25Budgetestimates_TreasuryDownload
Q0212_Economics_2024-25Budgetestimates_TreasuryDownload
/11 Comments/by

Ravenshoe: Join Us for a Q&A Session!

,

This is YOUR chance to have your voice heard! Bring your questions, share your concerns, and hear directly from Brenda Turner, who is seeking to be your representative in the Queensland parliament after this election.  Let’s dive into the key issues shaping Queensland and Australia, and other matters of concern.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

Margaret Mead, American cultural anthropologist, author and speaker

📅 Thursday, 5 September 2024  

🕒 6 pm to 8 pm

📍 Ravenshoe Hotel, 34 Grigg Street, Ravenshoe

👉RSVP today and secure your spot! https://qld.onenation.org.au/q-a-in-ravenshoe

Plan on dining in? Please book your meals direct with the Ravenshoe Hotel on (07) 4097 6136

/by

How Many Foreign Buyers Are Really Snatching Up Australian Homes?

,

Since November, I have been trying to get a very simple answer out of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO): How many potential foreign buyers are they detecting?

The ATO runs a data matching program that checks the details of more than 2.4 million sellers and buyers to detect if they might be foreign.

The ATO claims only 1% of purchases are foreign, but they won’t tell me how many of those 2.4 million matches they get are flagged as potentially foreign. Watch as they again refuse to tell me how many foreigners they identify in the 2.4 million records.

They claim to have manually checked over 230,000 records every year that can’t be automatically matched to confirm whether they are Australian. With other evidence like the NAB property survey indicating up to 11% of new housing stock is purchased by foreigners, I believe the ATO figures are completely understating the level of foreign buying in the country.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again tonight, and congratulations to you, Mr Heferen. I don’t think we’ve seen you since your appointment. My first question is about foreign buyers of real estate. Radio 2GB reported in April that foreign buyers accounted for 11 per cent of newly built homes in the final quarter of last year. This is a disaster for Australian homebuyers. Can you please provide that data for each quarter over the previous 12 months—the proportion of newly built homes bought by foreigners?

Mr Thompson: I think the 2GB article would have been using the National Australia Bank—

Senator ROBERTS: That’s my understanding.

Mr Thompson: As I think I’ve talked about at the committee before, there are a number of differences between the National Australia Bank survey and our data. So the National Australia Bank’s data is from a survey,
so it asks real estate and other real estate professionals to estimate. I think the exact question in that survey is about overseas buyers. Our numbers are coming from state and territory land title offices, which are matched
against Home Affairs data and Australia Electoral Commission data. There is a very significant gap between the numbers that appear in that survey and the numbers that we get. Our numbers are based on the definition of a foreigner under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act. I think last week we released the 2022-23 numbers, which would put the estimate at around one per cent.

Senator ROBERTS: Moving onto the first home super saver scheme, I’m quoting from the eligibility requirements in guidance note 2018/1: There is no requirement for you to be an Australian citizen, Australian resident or an Australian resident for taxation purposes. Why are we allowing foreigners—not even residents for taxation purposes—access to this scheme, which is meant to be for getting Australians into their first home?

Mr Heferen: That would be a policy question for our colleagues at the Treasury.

Ms Brown: It is a policy question for Treasury, but the appropriate group for it to be directed to is markets group. That is administered by our Retirement, Advice and Investment Division in markets group. We can take it on notice and have them provide a reply.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to come back to foreign ownership again. I refer to table 3 of the answer to question on notice SBE106 from the November estimates. Through the Department of Home Affairs visa data-
matching program, how many of the real property transfer report entities records that are automatically matched to ATO records are foreign?

Mr Thompson: As we’ve answered previously, we’re not able to—the question was, ‘How many do we automatically match?’ and ‘How many do we have to go away and do additional things to match?’

Senator ROBERTS: I’m coming to that.

Mr Thompson: If you think about it coming through the system: if it’s an exact match, that’s all automated. There would be a range of circumstances where we don’t get an automatic match. It could be that the date of
birth’s the wrong way. It could be a maiden name. In those circumstances, we have additional processes to match. We work down through every record. In the automatic matches, there will be some foreigners. In the ones we can’t automatically match, there will be some foreigners.

Senator ROBERTS: What percentage?

Mr Thompson: At that point—

Senator ROBERTS: You can’t tell us?

Mr Thompson: The numbers in that answer to the question on notice were addressing how many we automatically match versus how many we perform additional—

Senator ROBERTS: Correct. How many that were matched were foreigners?

Mr Thompson: If the question is about the compliance results that we get, they’re published—

Senator ROBERTS: My question is: what percentage of buyers are foreigners?

Mr Thompson: One per cent.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you provide to me on notice the numbers of foreign buyers for the last five years.

Mr Thompson: We publish that. I’ve got the latest public—

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, if you could take it on notice for the last five years.

Mr Thompson: I’ll take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: From table 4, immediately below that from the same question on notice from November estimates, how many of the entity records that were not able to be automatically matched to ATO records remain unverified or unresolved?

Mr Thompson: None.

Senator ROBERTS: How many unmatched records from the data-matching program remain unresolved from 2018 to date?

Mr Thompson: I think that’s the same question.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to go right back to 2018.

Mr Thompson: I’ll take that one on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: How many residential properties in Australia are owned by foreigners today?

Mr Thompson: I think that is the question around the register.

Senator ROBERTS: I just want to know how many foreigners own real estate. We’ve got a housing crisis. We’ve got people in Brisbane and all up and down the east coast of Queensland in major provincial cities sleeping under bridges and in cars, taking families home.

Senator Gallagher: Yes, but I think it’s very simplistic to say that that housing shortage is a result of foreign investment in residential housing. We’ve had a number of hearings where you’ve been told how relatively low that level is in comparison to non-foreign owned.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like the exact numbers.

Senator Gallagher: And we’ll provide that number to you, but the link that you are saying—that foreign ownership of properties equals some of what you’ve been talking about and is a real issue in Brisbane—is not
right. The issue is supply. We’ve got to build more houses for people, not blame foreigners for it.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve never said it’s entirely due to foreigners, but that is one—

Senator Gallagher: We need to make sure that the rules are tight, that there are restrictions in place, which there are, so that that arrangement works properly. But it’s not fair to say that the housing crisis is because we’ve got some small foreign-owned investments.

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that. I said that’s one contributing factor.

CHAIR: I’ll just do some committee administration here. I’ll table three documents—the three articles referenced by Senator O’Neill earlier. The committee has agreed to a time management plan to conclude
questions, so last question, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to make the point that the witnesses have provided answers so late, in the past, that they’ve been distributed at 8 pm on the day before they appear in Senate estimates, 100 days after the last
hearing, and failing to raise any public interest immunity claims on answers they don’t give. That’s a clear frustration of the committee’s work.

Senator Gallagher: We will try and do better, Senator Roberts. We have had a long discussion about the number of questions on notice which are coming in and having to be managed by departments, but I agree: it’s an important accountability measure, and departments should work to meet the timeframes.

Senator ROBERTS: When it’s 100 days, it’s way late, and then it suddenly comes in at 8 pm on the night before.

Senator Gallagher: Yes. I understand your frustration.

Daily Telegraph Article: Foreigners buying homes at twice the rate claimed in official figures, according to real estate agents and state tax data

Foreigners buying homes at twice the rate claimed in official figures, say real estate agents and state tax data | Daily Telegraph

Answers to Previous Questions on Notice

SQ23-000665 SBE054 – ATO – Foreign buyer crackdownDownload

SQ23-000661 SBE106 – ATO – Data matching program for Title DeedsDownload
/7 Comments/by